[MD] What's Emptiness?

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark --


> I think I understand your concern.  To say it is a function of I mean
> that it is permutations of.  A house is a function of the bricks and
> how they fit together.  I suppose from that example we can say that
> the bricks lead to the house, but doesn't the house lead to how the
> bricks are put together?  So, I am not pointing to anything fundamental 
> (yet).

But you ARE, Mark.  The formula DQ = fn(SQ) points to the conclusion that 
the parts construct the whole.  This is true only if you subscribe to 
pantheism.

> Conclusions can be drawn from a more sophisticated equation.
> According the physics, the universe is made up of primary forces;
> it is defined by them.  We can get into what side defines which side,
> but the equation simply states that they are different ways of
>expressing the same thing.  The purpose of the equation is to
> break up Quality into constituents.
>
> My force equation was just an example of something being defined by
> characteristics, which in turn can be further defined.  The intent to to
> find some universal constants, which in the case of Quality would be
> rhetorical devices (I'm sure John or dmb will correct me on this if I'm
> mistaken).
>
> So, a tree is a function of its branches and leaves (and of course much
> more), meaning how they are put together.  If you accept the use of
> equalities then we can move on to describing how Quality is put together.

I can accept the "equality" of the universe with its component parts.  What 
I cannot accept is
the concept that Ultimate Reality (DQ or Essence) is the sum of (or is made 
up of) finite constituents.  All I can say on this point is that Essence 
transcends the finitude which, at best, is a "differentiated reflection" of 
its Source.  But I doubt that you will view this as a concession on my part.

Furthermore, I think it has been established by the MDers that it is not 
possible to define the ineffable in terms of the concrete.  So, while a 
trunk with its branches and leaves "describes" a tree, these physical 
components do not in themselves constitute the "essence" of the tree or any 
other entity.  That essence is either Value (Quality), Forms (platonic), 
Consciousness, Beingness, or some other creative source of which the 
experienced components are functions.  Unless there are metaphysical 
functions that can cross the boundary of relational existence, it would 
appear that your goal is unachieveable.  In other words, you can't get there 
by basing your equations on physical principles.

This, I think, is also the problem one confronts when trying to apply 
logical syllogisms to metaphysical "truths".  The logic of empirical 
existence presumes a relational source; but that's fallacious because there 
is no justification for this presumption.

I didn't intend to throw a monkey wrench at your "constants" approach which, 
on the surface, seemed intriguing and worth attempting.  But I can see now 
that it begs the question of metaphysical reality as a "composite" of 
existential being.  And existentialism is inimical to Essentialism.  Perhaps 
others here who share your views will jump in to assist you.

In the meantime, there is much to be gained by clarifying the meaning of the 
terms being bandied about.  Pirsig didn't like to be pinned down by 
definitions, which I think has proved to be a dialectical 
handicap--especially for an English teacher.  For example, does it enhance 
our understanding to use the term "pattern" for every phenomenon 
experienced, including the observing subject?  Do we really need to view the 
evolving universe as "a static pattern" in order to understand DQ as 
something greater?  Is an amoral universe contradictory to man's efforts to 
establish a moral culture?  And does "evolving to betterness" have any 
meaning if human beings are not the active choice-makers in this movement?

I respectfully suggest that until such fundamental questions are resolved to 
everyone's satisfaction, the full implications of Pirsig's metaphysics will 
remain in doubt.

Essentially yours,
Ham